Well, en.labs would be best, as it is a site for testing :D But yes, English Wikibooks is a good candidate once we have explored the issue of long-untouched pages (ie the trust should be recalculated, I think)
Mike
From: wikiquality-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikiquality-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Luca de Alfaro
Sent: August 26, 2008 10:59 PM
To: Wikimedia Quality Discussions
Subject: Re: [Wikiquality-l] WikiTrust v2 released: reputation andtrustforyour wiki in real-time!
Yes, I fully agree.
We should start on a small project where people are interested.
We can consider the bigger wikis later, once we are confident that we like it and it works the way we want.
I was citing Enwiki just to discuss potential performance.
Ian and I can help with advice etc anyone who wants to try this out.
LucaOn Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 6:54 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:42 PM, mike.lifeguard
<mike.lifeguard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>even on the English Wikipedia (5 edits / second at most?) a single CPU
>> would sufficeBut why start so large? Pick a smaller test wiki first like, say,
en.wikibooks? We can throw that into the queue of things we want
installed down at WB.
--Andrew Whitworth
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
_______________________________________________
Wikiquality-l mailing list
Wikiquality-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l